Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

MrSeb writes "An American gunsmith has become the first person to construct and shoot a pistol partly made out of plastic, 3D-printed parts. The creator, who goes by the name HaveBlue and is an AR-15/M16 enthusiast, has reportedly fired 200 rounds with his part-plastic pistol without any sign of wear and tear. HaveBlue's custom creation is a .22-caliber pistol, formed from a 3D-printed AR-15 (M16) lower receiver, and a normal, commercial upper. In other words, the main body of the gun is plastic, while the chamber — where the bullets are actually struck — is solid metal. ... While this pistol obviously wasn't created from scratch using a 3D printer, the interesting thing is that the lower receiver — in a legal sense at least — is what actually constitutes a firearm. This means that people without gun licenses — or people who have had their licenses revoked — could print their own lower receiver and build a complete, off-the-books gun."Here come the illegal shapes. Note that the legal fiction of receiver-as-firearm is true in the U.S., but may not be in other jurisdictions, and that no gun license is required in most of the U.S. to purchase or possess a semi-automatic weapon.

If a right granted to you interferes with the natural rights of another, the law granting you that right is unjust and tyrannical.

Slaves, e.g. negroes, being humans, in and of themselves, would have their own natural right to freedom. Therefore, the law to which you refer would, indeed, be a law which steps on that right, which would certainly be tyranical.

And this is the definition of a natural right: something you can do without harming anyone else. If a black man doesn't ploy your fields, he's not harming you, he's simply not helping you, either. If two men marry, they're not harming you; in fact, as a straight man, that's two fewer guys competing for the few decent women out there, they're helping you by being gay. That's the test for whether something should be a natural right or not: if everyone is able to do this, will anyone be hurt? If yes, then more

If only pro-gun folks knew how easy it was to live without the things, and what a sense of peace one gets knowing they aren't about.

I am pro-gun. I grew up and spent most of my life where legal handguns are essentially unavailable to citizens, and you can only get a rifle (yes, even.22) after 10 years of owning a shotgun, and you need a hunting license for either. That country is also has three times as many homicides per capita as US, and violent crimes in general are even higher than that. Based on this personal evidence, and on available statistics, I have arrived to the conclusion that widespread legal gun ownership does not correlate with high crime rates, and therefore cannot cause them.

And yes, I do own and legally carry weapons here in US.

A hard to elucidate but very real reason why I (and I suspect, many others) want laws banning guns is because they are such inherently ugly and vile things - with the exception of hunting rifles, they exist for one purpose, to facilitate the most abhorrent crime there is. Defense and offense are malleable terms; killing is not. And that's what those things are for.

I don't see what's vile or abhorrent about killing in self-defense. Objectively speaking, it's not a crime in many jurisdictions (a crime is what the law says is a crime). The moral angle is, of course, subjective; but even if we disagree on that, why are you trying to force your morality onto others? It's no better than the right-wing loonies who campaign for gay marriage bans on the grounds that it "threatens social mores" or similar BS. Morality has no place in laws; stick to utilitarian reasoning.

Whether gun control decreases murders, whether gun control decreases injury and death caused by firearm, or some other measure? What test is the important one?

The relevant metric is whether gun control reduces violent crimes. Injury and death caused by firearm is a misleading statistic because it counts injuries and deaths inflicted onto criminals in self-defense, and I argue that those should not be counted the same as injuries and death inflicted by criminals to law-abiding citizens. Counting murders alone is also misleading because it ignores other violent crimes, often those which are much more common - e.g. if you see a 10% increase in murders and a 50% decrease in rapes after legalizing guns, the absolute numbers are even more different because rapes are far more common than murders. Of course, you should still weigh a murder heavier than a rape, but you can't disregard the latter altogether on the grounds that it's okay to let 50 women be raped to save one human life.

I hope that, someday, the United States becomes a country with regular forces, a reserve force, and a well-regulated milita force, composed of citizen soldiers who carry weapons under well regulated conditions, as they do in Switzerland, for - by my reading - that is the right to arms that your constitution grants you. Beyond that, ban everything but slow-shooting hunting rifles.

That doesn't make sense together. If you ban possession of everything but "slow-shooting" (what does that mean, exactly? bolt-action and single shot only? are lever-action okay? revolver carbines?) rifles, then you already are going much further than Switzerland, since in Switzerland civilian possession of semi-automatic rifles is legal and very common.

If you are talking about banning carrying, then your rationale suddenly doesn't make sense. A criminal will carry a gun if he needs one for the commission of a crime regardless of whether the law prohibits that or not - he's already breaking the law. A citizen legally owning a gun is statistically highly unlikely to use it in a commission of a crime, and even less so when legally carrying it outside the house.

The police in the UK have and still to a degree manage to police their country without guns

If only pro-gun folks knew how easy it was to live without the things, and what a sense of peace one gets knowing they aren't about. Walking through an American city must be like walking through a cactus field - watch yourself all the time lest you get punched full of holes.

It's easy to live without the internet, too. Should we force you to do so because some people use it to molest children?
I walk through an American city (Seattle) on a regular basis. There are thousands of gun owners here, and many of us carry concealed or openly on a regular basis, yet we have a lower murder rate than most large cities on Earth. Why? Because we don't have a huge drug-based turf war.
Gun related deaths, outside of the drug trade, are very rare. And that's a completely different problem.

A hard to elucidate but very real reason why I (and I suspect, many others) want laws banning guns is because they are such inherently ugly and vile things - with the exception of hunting rifles, they exist for one purpose, to facilitate the most abhorrent crime there is.

Target shooting is the most abhorrent crime there is? That is the primary use of guns in America. I would have gone with something like genocide, which, interestingly enough, only seems to happen to unarmed populations.

Defense and offense are malleable terms

Not in the least. Defense is the resistance against offense, and offense is the initiation of force.

Again, you don't need the internet, but we don't ban it just because some people use it maliciously. One of the costs of living in a free society is having to put up with shit you don't like. If one of your neighbors owns a gun, either deal with it or move. Unless he does something wrong (such as pointing it at another person), you have no reason to complain.

The police in the UK have and still to a degree manage to police their country without guns; surely regular citizens can get by in the same way in your country. Recall one of the reasons why police in the UK were able to operate that way: since criminals knew the police didn't carry guns, the criminals had less of a reason to do so themselves. Compare that situation to the US, where a veritable arms race has occurred, to the point were criminals and police carry military rifles on what appears to be a regular basis.

I'm curious which Hollywood movie you get your knowledge of American crime from. The vast majority of criminals in the US do not carry firearms, because carrying one adds a hefty decade or two to a prison sentence.

Interestingly enough...if you check the data [wikipedia.org], there's no real correlation between crime rates and gun control. Of the top 10 violent crime cities in the US, five are in very anti-gun states, the other five are in middle-of-the-road gun control states. What the high crime cities do have in common are gangs, poverty, and drugs.

As an aside, if you ever want to overthrow your government, then you will succeed when army units defect to the rebels' side. If the army is united, you can't win against it, for they are better armed. But the army is made of of citizens, and a just rebellion should be able to convince soldiers not to shoot fellow citizens and to oppose tyranny.

There are 1.4 million active duty military personnel in the US military. There are over 100 million legal gun owners in the US. We are far better armed. They might have tanks, bombers, and artillery, but controlling a population requires infantry. You can say that a full-auto M4 is better than what civilians own (but it's not). Our rifles have better range on average, and due to superior numbers, we can put more rounds on the target.

No. He believes that the NRA doesn't try to control the lives of Americans, but instead to give them freedom. It's the government that is trying to control people, sometimes far beyond what is safe or reasonable. He may or may not be correct, but it's not really that hard to get at what he is saying.

...they are forcing the rest of us to deal with all kinds of military-grade weaponry in civilian hands.

Not really. "Military Grade" is a political fiction, the civilian AR-15 is functionally identical to popular hunting rifles. It's "military" only in a cosmetic sense, black plastic instead of wood, same sights and controls as the M-16/M-4. In operation it functions like many hunting rifles, semi-automatic only (one shot per trigger squeeze), it leaves the factory with a 5 round magazine just like the hunting rifles, it uses the same ammunition, etc. The NRA opposes (in part) an assault rifle ban because they understand the functional definition of a rifle like the AR-15 (detachable magazine, semi-automatic,...) would apply to many hunting rifles as well.

They think it's an infringement of their 'rights' to even be required to be trained to use the weapons they are buying.

The NRA is the largest firearms safety training organization in the world. They got into the political debate only because well meaning but ill-informed politicians were going down the path to outlaw (sometimes unintentionally) traditional hunting and target shooting firearms.

"The NRA opposes (in part) an assault rifle ban because they understand the functional definition of a rifle like the AR-15 (detachable magazine, semi-automatic,...) would apply to many hunting rifles as well."

That is NOT the only reason, or even the main reason.

The 2nd Amendment was put in place specifically to give people the right to own "military-grade" firearms, so they could protect themselves from a potentially tyrannical government. Hunting actually has little or nothing to do with that. It's just one more reason.

Are you really that stupid? The NRA doesn't want to make it legal to shoot people.

Just because you have a right to have the gun and use it safely, doesn't mean you have the right to shoot people willy-nilly. That's covered by other laws (assault, manslaughter, murder etc) that the NRA does NOT have any problem with.

Because taking away legal firearm ownership clearly reduces the chances of getting shot... (That was sarcasm for the slow among us)

Here are the stats on gun deaths for the U.S., Canada, and the U.K., from Wikipedia:

United States: 10.27 per 100,000 people

Canada: 4.78 per 100,000 people

England:.46 per 10,0000 people.

The United States, obviously, has the least gun control. Canada has more regulation. Rifles are limited to 5 round magazines, pistols to 10 rounds; licenses required for pistols. The U.K. has effectively outlawed semiautomatic weapons and pistols. Overall homicide rates follow these patterns, so it's not the case that people will just find other ways to commit murder. Making guns more available and making rapid-fire weapons more available makes murder easier, and therefore more common. I've shot assault rifles and.50 caliber sniper rifles, and yeah, they're pretty awesome. But personally, I'd be willing to have stricter licensing requirements, gun registration, background checks, and limits on clip size to save tens of thousands of lives a year.

I like the fact I was able to walk into my local gun store and walk out with my Glock 19 and XD45 a half hour later. I like the fact that I can buy cases (1000 rounds) of ammunition online. I still think some of what comes out of the NRA is pretty kooky and I see no "liberal" or UN conspiracy to take any of that from me.

Heh. One thing to realize is that the NRA is a bit like the ACLU. It's actually considered 'not extreme enough' and 'too willing to bend' by some, there are more extreme organizations out there like the 'Gun Owners of America'.

But I'll agree, the NRA does have some kooks in it, but mostly they're there because they recognize the NRA as the '800 pound gorilla', so they throw some support to it, while also supporting the 300 pound gorilla who is, theoretically speaking, mauling some of the anti-gun gorillas

Gun rights advocates have run into the car analogy lots of times. It's even worse than the standard Slashdot tactic of using car analogies with computers. If guns were licensed like cars, almost everyone would be able to get a license; and you would be able to own and fire a gun on private property without a license. And there would be almost no limits on selling guns.

Exactly the kind of strawman argument I was talking about. Regulating guns as we regulate cars is not the same as applying the exact same regulations to guns as are applied to cars.

"... I see no "liberal" or UN conspiracy to take any of that from me."

Then you haven't been paying attention.

This is from a letter from a Congresscritter to her constituents, on July 13, 2012:

"I recently joined many of my colleagues in a letter urging President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton to reject a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) that infringes on our constitutional right to bear arms. While the Administration voted in the U.N. General Assembly to participate in the negotiation of this treaty, I am extremely concerned that the ATT -- as it stands -- will pose serious threats to our national security, foreign policy, economic interests, and constitutional rights."

The UN has publicly stated that one of its goals is to restrict private firearms ownership throughout the world. And in case you have forgotten, they have a giant statue of a revolver outside their building. It doesn't stand for "shoot thy neighbor". It's a symbol of their GOAL of taking guns away from people.

That letter was written and signed by Tea Party Republicans in the House misrepresenting the ATT as a UN conspiracy to disarm Americans when it only calls for a national system of munition export controls to prevent them from being used in war crimes.

You just provided an example of the kooky conspiracy theories I was talking about.

To ensure that comprehensive and accurate records are kept for as long as possible on the manufacture, holding and transfer of small arms and light weapons under their jurisdiction. These records should be organized and maintained in such a way as to ensure that accurate information can be promptly retrieved and collated by competent national authorities.

To develop and implement, where possible, effective disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes, including the effective collection, control, storage and destruction of small arms and light weapons...

Note that it refers to "transfer" -- that is to say, sale or trade -- within the signatory's jurisdiction. That means, if the U.S. were a signatory, it would have to keep strict records, and attempt "effective disarmament" within its jurisdiction. No, I'm not just pulling meanings out of the air. That's what the Program calls for, and UN representatives have s

You know why the UN will never be able to have a treaty that disarms US Citizens?

There aren't 67 senators that want to retire at the end of their current term. Treaties have to be ratified by the US Senate before US Citizens are beholden to them. To ratify, it takes a 2/3rds majority vote in the Senate.

67 Senators can't even agree on what to have for lunch, much less on repealing the Bill of Rights.

Around 1/2 of the US population has at least one gun in their home. The NRA indirectly represents those people as well as the others that support the right to bear arms but don't happen to have any. Ultimately that means they represent over half the population.

A new survey, by Republican pollster Frank Luntz and commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a coalition of over 400 mayors, even more dramatically contradicts the conventional political wisdom on the gun issue. Not only does the NRA not represent the views of gun owners on major issues of gun policy; it doesn't even represent the views of its own membership. For example, the Luntz survey found that 69% of self-described NRA members agree that all gun sellers at gun shows should be required to conduct criminal background checks on prospective buyers, a reform that would close the infamous "gun show loophole". Luntz found that 82% of NRA members support "prohibiting persons on the terrorist watch lists from purchasing guns." Seventy-eight percent of NRA members support "requiring gun owners to alert police if their guns are lost or stolen." All of these measures are vehemently opposed by the NRA.

The NRA has the same problem that Unions and our Government have. It has been co-opted by a vocal minority. Many people have left or refused to join. Which is why a simple google search on "NRA membership coupon" turns up a plethora of discounts and ways to get free memberships.

Nothing short of a Soviet style police state would have stopped him either. That's kind of the whole point of this article. We live in a highly advanced technological society. We have been building our own weapons since before we were an independent nation.

The idea that we can put the genie back in the bottle is a little absurd.

If not bullets, then explosives. If not explosives, then chemicals.

Some of this tech is ancient already. If you can build stuff, you can probably build bad stuff.

Body armor does a great job of keeping you alive, and a shit job of keeping you comfortable. It's incredibly hard to continue whatever you're doing while you're being punched repetitively in the center of mass. If a "John Wayne wannabe" would have knocked the breath out of, or even just distracted, the shooter, then there would have been an opportunity for him to be attacked. Your assumption that there is nothing that can be done about an armored attacker with a gun is most likely the product of your unfamiliarity with guns and does not reflect reality.

Furthermore, your ignorance of the subject is showing, the Colorado shooter had no automatic weapons. You were probably confused by the term "assault rifle" which is commonly assumed to mean an automatic weapon, but in fact (in the US) is legally defined as a weapon that has a detachable magazine and at least two of several cosmetic features such as a forward grip or a barrel shroud. This is why assault weapon bans are commonly ridiculed as bans on scary looking guns.

Ultimately, of course, this is all just a bunch of people being brave in hindsight. We know that guns are effective at deterring normal crimes, however an insane shooter obviously offers a different problem. At some point a shooter is going to run up against an armed citizen, and then we'll find out for sure just how effective they will be. Hopefully that armed citizen is responsible and capable of using their weapon effectively and are not just carrying around a gun to feel safe.

So, if the barrel shroud and forward grip are purely cosmetic, why are they so popular?

Because they look badass, which, as B1oodange1 pointed out, is also the fundamental reason why hoplophobes want to ban them; because they're afraid of weapons, they actually believe that the scarier a weapon looks, the more dangerous it is.

Ultimately, of course, this is all just a bunch of people being brave in hindsight. We know that guns are effective at deterring normal crimes, however an insane shooter obviously offers a different problem. At some point a shooter is going to run up against an armed citizen, and then we'll find out for sure just how effective they will be. Hopefully that armed citizen is responsible and capable of using their weapon effectively and are not just carrying around a gun to feel safe.

Keep in mind that in such a situation, you are surrounded by people panicking, dying, clawing at you, standing there trying to aim, to get you out of the way. Having seen what happens when a crowd of people try to leave a burning nightclub through a doorway, all at the same time, I'd say you probably would not keep your feet. It's shooter's choice; he can flood the area with tear gas, as he did, or smoke bombs, or simply *shut off the lights* by shooting them out. I am all for trying to take the guy out. Bu

Ultimately, of course, this is all just a bunch of people being brave in hindsight. We know that guns are effective at deterring normal crimes, however an insane shooter obviously offers a different problem. At some point a shooter is going to run up against an armed citizen, and then we'll find out for sure just how effective they will be.

Body armor that protects your head is essentially worthless versus firearms as anyone in the military will tell you. Sure, it will maybe keep you from dying, or deflect a poorly aimed round occasionally (it's more to protect versus fragments and schrapneil, actually), but it's certainly not going to keep you from being injured or suffering from major trauma. If you look at the massive amount of bruising and sometimes broken ribs that happens after a bulletproof vest is shot, a single shot to his head woul

5 or 6 rounds of 9mm or.40 S&W or.45 ACP hitting him from 3 or 4 different people in the theater would have given quite a few people time to get the fuck out.Even wearing body armor it is going to hurt you, slow you down and distract you.And if someone gets a good shot in it can still put him down.

Law abiding citizens that carry weapons are not police.They normally train with their weapons and get proficient with them.

I do not really care. If the anti-gun people want to sit around and hope that there is a cop next to them when shit goes down that is their right.But we all know the cops are there to investigate murders and to help bring about justice after the fact.Rarely are they able to stop something while it is happening.

BTW, no number of delusional John Wayne wannabes could have stopped that gunman.

I guess I'll take comfort in the fact that the cops will be there in 5 minutes while I take a bullet in my back shielding my girl friend from the maniac. Actually, the riot helmet Holmes was wearing wouldn't have stopped a bullet. Difficult shot but I'd rather take it than wait for the cops to show up and "save" the day.

I don't have children, yet I still pay for schools in my taxes. I don't drive a car, but I do buy gasoline for my lawnmower and snowblower, so I am paying road taxes as well even though I don't drive on them. Sorry, but people that have kids and send them to private schools don't get my sympathy if they pay for public schools out of their taxes too. I don't have a problem with some of my taxes going towards public schools as I think investing money in education is a good idea. But your argument holds no water with me at all.

You don't need to have kids in public school to benefit from public education. Without public schools, where are you going to find workers for your business? If you have no business and your boss need workers and can't find them, he'll go out of business and so does your job.

Jees,/.'s collective IQ has seriously dropped in the last 5 or 10 years. This stuff is brain-dead simple, kids. A five year old should be able to figure it out.

...you should no longer have to pay school taxes since you never used the government school.

Wrong. Society as a whole benefits from public education. Children who grow up and have no marketable skills will become a drain on society. Worse, they won't have the understanding to make intelligent choices at the ballot box. If you want a democracy, you want good public education.

Who will they blame when some nut-job goes postal with one of these illegal shapes?

Will they ban 3D Printers?

It'll just add to the political football match we've had for decades. Nutjobs will still kill people with weapons bought legally, with ammo bought leagally and nothing illegal done until they day they act.

It'll just add to the political football match we've had for decades. Nutjobs will still kill people with weapons bought legally, with ammo bought leagally and nothing illegal done until they day they act.

I'm waiting for the first 3D printed bomb

That's entirely true, as long as there are human beings, people will go insane and kill people. But when certain classes of weapons become illegal or are made more difficult to obtain, the outcome of these events would be rather different. The most recent headlines would probably read something like "man goes on insane rampage, kills six with bolt-action hunting rifle", as opposed to a dozen. The NRA likes to say, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Which is true. But guns are tools people use to do a job, and when you can't get the right tools for the job (in this case, murdering people), then you can't do your job as well. Canada, for instance, places restrictions on the size of the magazine (5 rounds for rifles, 10 for handguns) are requires that you take a test and get a license called a Possession and Acquisition License before you can buy a handgun. Their rate of firearms-related deaths (4.78 per 100,000 people) is about half that of the United States (10.27 per 100,000 people). The U.K. has effectively banned semiautomatic rifles and handguns and has an even lower rate of firearm related deaths (.46 per 10,000). All else being equal, the more restrictions are placed on handguns, the fewer deaths there are. Obviously, people can and will resort to other tools, but it's a lot less efficient to stab, poison, strangle or bludgeon people to death. Canada still has a lower murder rate (1.7 murders per 100,000 people) than the U.S. (4.7 per 100,000) and the U.K. is even lower (1.23 per 100,000). These stats are all off Wikipedia, incidentally.

Think of it this way. We already have gun control; you can't buy a fully automatic assault rifle. What if there wasn't any restriction on what you could buy? If you could buy anything you wanted, you wouldn't conduct a massacre with a semiautomatic AR-15, you'd buy a fully automatic AK-47. For one thing, on automatic an AK can fire 600 rounds per minute. The other thing is that they're simple, rugged and reliable, designed for use by untrained peasants fighting in the hills. The AR-15/M-16 was notorious for being finicky and jamming at the wrong moment, particularly when the rifle was first fielded in Viet Nam. It's better these days, but the fact that the AR-15 used in the Colorado killing jammed is the only reason more people didn't die. The bottom line is here, gun control (as limited as it is) saved lives during this massacre, more gun control would save more lives.

"The most recent headlines would probably read something like "man goes on insane rampage, kills six with bolt-action hunting rifle", as opposed to a dozen."

No, they wouldn't, because we ALREADY know that doesn't happen. Keep in mind that various states and municipalities have banned guns every which way from near complete bans to restrictions on "assault" weapons, and they've been doing it for over 50 years (80 if you count Federal restrictions that were put in place back in the 30s).

The Department of Justice has been keeping records and statistics for all of that time. And we KNOW that bans don't work. The government's own statistics prove it.

The places that had the strictest bans continued to have the highest crime rates. The only real difference was that the guns used were, by definition, illegal. But they were still obtained, and still used.

I am well aware that the "fewer guns equals fewer deaths" argument seems straightforward and logical, and even obvious. But things are not always what they seem. And we KNOW that, at least here in the United States, restrictions don't work. They don't reduce crime. In fact, the number and severity of crimes tends to go UP.

when 3d printers become good enough to make knock-off products that's when real battle about copyrights heats up.however, in most cases, one could do it without a 3d printer too. but there's going to be a line when it's much simpler to do it with them.

now this guy could have constructed the bottom part without a 3d printer too.

now this guy could have constructed the bottom part without a 3d printer too.

Somebody once made a working lower out of paper mache. The lower isn't the high-stress part of the gun. I'll note from the article that it mentioned the chamber was solid metal - I'll point out that the barrel is as well if he's using a standard upper as it states.

We've been able to make 100% plastic lowers for quite some time. They're just not durable enough quite yet for common use.

Copyright and, to a lesser extent, patents. A lot of surprising things are covered by patents. For example, I own one of those bagless vacuum cleaners. As I empty it of dust I tap it against the edge of the bin and it is quite possible that one day, dislodging a particually stubborn dustball, I may break it. A simple plastic part of a very specific shape that isn't available on the general market - a perfect example of where 3d printing would be of help. I can just jump on the internet, find a 3d model of the part (or failing that, make my own and publish it for anyone else with this problem) and churn off a new piece from the printer. But that bagless cyclone technology is patented by Dyson - and by printing my own component, I'd probably be infringing their patent. But, would this extend also to any site hosting the model file?

If everyone in that theater was armed and had at least rudimentary firearms safety training... how far do you think the crazy guy would have gotten?

This is actually a rather sticky problem. I am, in general, again gun control in any form. However, it is easier for police to deal with things because you can GENERALLY assume that uniform+gun = good guy, and no-uniform+gun = bad guy. This formula works well enough 99% of the time.

In that theater, if everybody had a gun, I would not have been surprised if th

While the lower receiver is legally considered to be the serialized firearm it is fairly simple part. Folks have been making them on CNC machines for years. The metal upper receiver is much more difficult to manufacture and required precision metal machining. You need both to have a functional weapon. Without the upper, the lower is completely and utterly useless.

The apparent amazement about the "plastic" pistol is a bit baffling. I mean come on. [bing.com]

And as far as concern over someone who can not lawfully own a gun using a 3d printer to manufacture a weapon, really? For a very small amount of money pretty much anyone who wants can go buy a gun on the street. For slightly more money they can purchase a totally legal gun through the classifieds or a gun show.

Yeah, well I'm trying to spread out the tracking information. I use gmail for primary email and bing for initial searches. I use hotmail for throw-away and google if I can't find it on bing. And I am an iPhone user with whatever associated tracking bullshit happens there. But at least it's not all with one company.

No gun license required? Why would anyone need a license to exercise a right guaranteed by the law of the land? Do you need a license to vote? Do you need a license to be safe from being enslaved? Do you need a license to own a printing press and open a newspaper? I'm totally lost here. What sort of brain structure causes this mental vomit to occur?

No gun license required? Why would anyone need a license to exercise a right guaranteed by the law of the land? Do you need a license to vote? Do you need a license to be safe from being enslaved? Do you need a license to own a printing press and open a newspaper? I'm totally lost here. What sort of brain structure causes this mental vomit to occur?

That's just an illegal custom firearm. The AR-15 has a split receiver design and the lower is serialized and constitutes the firearm. By fabricating the lower receiver this gunsmith just made a new custom firearm (legal), but did not serialize it (illegal). Also a crappy plastic gun.

A synthetic AR-15 lower receiver is nothing new, printing one yourself is however. Is it dangerous? Yeah kinda, unless you a printing with a rather high strength polymer. Is it illegal? Not if you follow the BATF guidelines. Hobby machinists have been milling them from aluminum for ages. You can buy all sorts of jigs and receiver blanks. If you were to say start manufacturing lower receivers, or do not qualify to legally own them and get caught the penalties are very severe. Also as anyone who builds their own AR-15s will tell you, certain parts are in very high demand, you may wait weeks to months for something simple to complete your build. So I wouldn't worry about somebody building a ton of "off books" rifles any time soon.

This actually could be a good thing. Right now, the public mentality is that gun owner = nut job. Unless Congress is willing to criminalize owning a 3D printer, it might actually force people think about the current state of laws and actually make sensible gun laws.

Cost. 3d printers can cost a LOT less than a CNC, both for purchase and continued operation.

And skill. Even if you have the CAD files or G-Code, a CNC mill requires a lot of skill to set up and run. With a 3D printer, you just push the "start" button.

My kids use a 3D printer to make toys and doll furniture. But they are not allowed to touch the Sherline [sherline.com] CNC mill in the garage unless I am with them. It is dangerous and they don't have the skill to operate it.

Making your own firearms is a well-established hobby in the U.S. Lots of people do it. There are forums devoted to it. Federal law specifically provides for it. It's nothing new. Nor is composite as a material for AR lowers; youtube has plenty of videos of people shooting "Plum Crazy"-based AR rifles. And 3D printing has been around a while.

There is a reason why firearm manufacturers create parts out of single bar stock aluminum or steel metal pieces and machine them out, that is to maintain durability during firing process of the gun so it doesn't explode in your hands and injure you or worse and that it will last over repeated uses.

The most difficult part of creating the gun is the creation of the barrel with a chamber that can withstand pressures of 22,000 to 55,000 pounds-per-inch and not explode into shrapnel hurting you badly. Barrel creation is difficult and taken very seriously with many manufacturers using a magnetic particle inspection process to ensure that there are no metal weak points or fractures inside the walls of the barrels to prevent them from exploding.

Until these low priced home 3D printing machines can print out of aluminum, steel, or other metals to maintain some kind of rigidity on the parts these printed firearm pieces will just be an exercise in computer aided design and prototyping. Many of the pistols now use plastic frames

As far as legality of manufacturing your own firearm by people who are somehow restricted by law from owning one, well it's the possession and ownership that is restricted, not the creation so all possession restrictions still apply.

You can create your own firearms according to the Gun Control Act of 1968 for personal usage just not sale or distribution. If you decide to make these 3D printed firearm receivers you would have to apply for a Federal Firearms License type 7 or 10 and register your business then put serial numbers on these parts.

US BATFE (aka, ATF, BATF) [atf.gov]Q: Is it legal to assemble a firearm from commercially available parts kits that can be purchased via internet or shotgun news?

For your information, per provisions of the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, an unlicensed individual may make a “firearm” as defined in the GCA for his own personal use, but not for sale or distribution."

This is a long, long way from being the very first thing an American has used a 3d printer for. As for whether or not this is the first thing this particular guy printed, it doesn't say. However, he is a gunsmith so it does make sense that he would try printing a gun.

It'd be like saying "World's first 3d printed tea cup is made by housewares company in Britain... how British!" or "World's first 3d printed dildo with tentacles made by adult toy store in Japan... how Japanese"

Actually the first printed part was much more utilitarian and non-controversial. The day before the printer was completed, a storm had knocked down a few of the trees on the property of the inventor, and instead of heading to the hardware store for the parts to repair his fence, he decided to build the parts needed. The horizontal rails were too large for the printer, so a replacement vertical piece was constructed. This 'first post' is still proudly displayed on the property.

Just an aside. I was once denigrating clothing designers and was challenged to 'design something'. So I designed a bikini for my GF. She refused to even try it on. Didn't like my material choices (clear plastic wrap, dental floss and scotch tape).

Exactly. Anyone with access to milling equipment could mill their own lower reciever, assuming they knew the plans. Then they would still have to purchase the upper, the trigger assembly, and other parts. It's not really any different, and with the ability to mill a real receiver, they could make a firearm that can actuall handle.223/.308 rounds.

Or, you know, they could save themselves all of this time and trouble and just go to one of the myriad of websites that allow people to get in touch with others looking to buy or sell firearms. I visit one myself regularly that is part of the forums of an outdoor website dedicatedto my state, and I have even sold a firearm through it. All perfectly legal, with no documentation of transfer of ownership. And on this website alone there are often several AR- and AK- type rifles for sale, anywhere from $400-$1000. This development adds nothing to the equation.

On locksmithing, it may depend on your state. Owning the tools is legal in my state, although having them on your person in suspicious circumstances might make you a person of interest. It's like having a baseball bat -- in the park, not a big deal. In a crowd outside city hall, something else again.

Yup, because the lower on an AR-15 (which is considered the "firearm" by the BATFE) isn't a structural part - it simply keeps all the other parts in appropriate alignment.

And, perfectly legal to make your own firearm, as long as it isn't for commercial purposes (sale), and as long as you follow all NFA rules. You can make a SBR, AOW, etc. as long as you get the proper tax stamp first.... Only thing you can't make is a full auto since the NFA registry for FA/select fire stuff was closed in May 1986. Of course, if you have your FFL and SOT for NFA manufacture, you can still make FA/select fire items *with* the appropriate request for demo unit from a law enforcement agency or military.